Anthology series still the best choice............just imagine
Gisèle La Roche
One of the failings of DS9 and in fact *the only one* in my opinion
was
the fact that it had a serial format and was not based on stand-
alone
episodes and that
made it difficult for new or casual viewers to follow the series
however
great it was/is. DS9 is Trek's masterpiece in my opinion but it
failed
to garner as many viewers as TPTB would have liked. An anthology
format
would solve this problem with the
new series TPTB are developing and more.
Voyager as a series has suffered because its premise painted the
writers
into a corner. How many ways can you introduce new villains or even
sustain new villains or recurring characters when the ship is always
on
the move? These parameters and others are paramount to the making of
a
good scifi show. Paradoxically the premise of Voyager also makes it
difficult to develop the main
characters as the only environment is basically the ship. How many
times can the ship almost find a faster way home or get home at all
and
not ruin the premise? How can it tap into the already existing
*rich*
Trek mythology? Many blame Brannon Braga and I am one of them but on
second thought I think he may have been one of the people that have
kept
Trek alive if only because they knew that DS9 would come to its
finish
and all they had was Voyager to keep things going and I think Braga
has
had a difficult time of it mainly because of the premise of the show
and
considering all of the above I think he has done a fair job of it.
Anyhow, I know many would argue but let's go on.
TOS and TNG were around when TV ratings were high. TV had less
rivals.
TNG was a ratings success. DS9 achieved the highest ratings in
syndication TV but never achieved TNG's ratings, why? Apart from
its
format and the fact that TV at the time and the big screen movies on
top
of that were saturated with scifi, when DS9 came on the scene we had
the
newly emerging popularity of computers with chatrooms, newsgroups,
heck
the internet to explore. There were the new game systems and games
to
keep us occupied. There were more and more TV stations to choose
from.
How does TV or Trek for that matter get the viewers back?
Ok, some would say more sex, more violence, and the newer twenty
something romance/comedy formats. But how do you infuse new life
into
what some are saying is the overdone Trek universe?
How about an anthology series? I know it has been discussed before
but
I have really thought about it on and off for quite some time and
would
like your opinions on what I have to say.
Imagine..............
Captain Riker and the Enterprise and Admiral Picard (ok maybe not
Picard
as Patrick Stewart is too high-priced these days) but imagine an
episode or arc focusing on this crew.
How about an episode dealing with Cardassia and the aftermath of the
war
with the Dominion. We would get to see Garak
again................yessss.
An update on how Colonel Kira and DS9 is faring. We would get to
see
Nana Visitor again. I am a female but I would LOVE to see her
again. Oh
and how about Quark and Nog, Ezri and Bashir and so on?
How about an episode dealing with the Romulans on one of their ships
and/or on the homeworld exploring their culture. This would apply
to
any race ie. Cardassians, Bajorans, Pakleds (heh heh), you name it.
Voyager's crew at home and how they fare.
Did Bajor join the Federation?
Put you thoughts here!!!
The writers would be free to take from any part of the already
established
Trek universe. They would be free to explore scifi storylines that
wouldn't necessarily disrupt continuity as Voyager has been forced
to do
with its premise. Trekkers I am certain would tune in just to see
what
part of the Trek universe would be explored next. Even Ronald D.
Moore
might come back. Ok, I am pushing it but he was one of the best
writers
they had. The FOOLS *let* him
go.........................................
With an anthology series we would get to see many of our favorite
characters without the writers having to use *overused* storylines
to
explain their appearance.
One thing I dread is that they might go for the *kid factor*. This
I
sincerely believe would *kill* Trek. Watching Naomi Wildman and
thinking about "Insurrection" I can't help but think this is where
they
are headed. The rumors about an academy series seem to be false but
it may just be that they want some kind of twenty-something type of
maybe not romance/comedy type of drivel but still might infuse the
new
show with it as it is popular right now.
What created Trek in the first place? TOS was the most innovative
series of the time but it wasn't the sets or the special effects
that
made it good. What has endured are the relationships and the
characters,
the exploration of humanity, the fact that it reflected *us*. And
that
*us* resonates around the globe. We, and that includes people from
all
over the world from countless cultures, could identify with the
characters. This is what made DS9 such a good series as well. The
stories in TOS were hardly childish or geared to the kids.
And yet I watched it and loved it and I was a little kid at the
time.
It makes me think of Bugs Bunny and how although they were cartoons
they
appealed to kids AND adults. Why? Because they were human. We
could
identify with them.
The only argument I can see against this is the cost. All I can say
is
were they stupid enough to destroy the sets of DS9 for one thing?
Would
it be all that more expensive in the end?
Let me know what YOU think. I really would like to know if I make
any
sense at all.
Gisčle
.
TrekLady
IMHO no Trek in the 1990s would be a ratings blockbuster. Trek always
promoted a utopian, authority-loving (e.g., Feds) universe. The trends of
1990s SciFi were towards a more distopic, anti-authority universe. DS9
anticipated this by becoming a darker Trek, but NOT a darker SciFi show.
In DS9's early seasons, the "darkness" of the show was mostly superficial
(e.g, the senior staff not getting along as well as crews from TNG or TOS,
dark interiors), and most of the first season storylines could have been
lifted straight from TNG.
In later seasons, DS9's storylines and characters tried to catch up (e.g.,
Section 31), but it couldn't compete because, being Trek, DS9 could never go
as far as these 1990s SciFi shows. Therefore, it didn't attract a large, new
audience from these fans.
Unfortunately, being the darkest Trek, DS9 alienated some Trek fans. These
fans believe that without a captain, crew, the Enterprise, and a utopian,
prime directive-fearing Federation, you don't have Trek. This left DS9 out
in the ratings cold.
>One of the failings of DS9 and in fact *the only one* in my opinion
>was
>the fact that it had a serial format and was not based on stand-
>alone
>episodes and that
>made it difficult for new or casual viewers to follow the series
>however
>great it was/is.
I always took this argument with a grain of salt. It's true that many Trek
fans used to episodic nature of TOS and TNG may prefer this format for Trek.
But, many people watch serialized programs (i.e., Melrose Place, B5). Even
die-hard Trek fans watch every episode of their favorite Trek looking for
continuous themes and storylines.
DS9 is Trek's masterpiece in my opinion but it
>failed
>to garner as many viewers as TPTB would have liked. An anthology
>format
>would solve this problem with the
>new series TPTB are developing and more.
>
An anthology show would be an excellent idea all around. You can place the
show anywhere and anytime within and without the Federation; you can bring
aliens, starships, civilians, etc. You can use new stars and writers, bring
back old stars, or do two- or three-parters for those arc-loving fans (like
me).
>Voyager as a series has suffered because its premise painted the
>writers
>into a corner. How many ways can you introduce new villains or even
>sustain new villains or recurring characters when the ship is always
>on
>the move? These parameters and others are paramount to the making of
>a
>good scifi show. Paradoxically the premise of Voyager also makes it
>difficult to develop the main
>characters as the only environment is basically the ship. How many
>times can the ship almost find a faster way home or get home at all
>and
>not ruin the premise? How can it tap into the already existing
>*rich*
>Trek mythology?
For Trek, I thought the premise was weak for the reasons you stated except
for character development. Like DS9, the characters on VOY are essentially
stuck on the ship and they should be highly developed after seven years.
Interestingly, IMHO the premise of VOY was weak for Trek, but for not for a
SciFi show. If the writers didn't use the magic reset button at the end of
every episode and displayed some more continuity, the show could be more
interesting. (e.g., the ship should be a mismatch of alien and Federation
technology, the supplies of weapons may be running out)
TrekLady
richard
> I discussed this on another group.
>
> IMHO no Trek in the 1990s would be a ratings blockbuster. Trek always
> promoted a utopian, authority-loving (e.g., Feds) universe. The trends of
> 1990s SciFi were towards a more distopic, anti-authority universe. DS9
> anticipated this by becoming a darker Trek, but NOT a darker SciFi show.
>
> In DS9's early seasons, the "darkness" of the show was mostly superficial
> (e.g, the senior staff not getting along as well as crews from TNG or TOS,
> dark interiors), and most of the first season storylines could have been
> lifted straight from TNG.
>
> In later seasons, DS9's storylines and characters tried to catch up (e.g.,
> Section 31), but it couldn't compete because, being Trek, DS9 could never go
> as far as these 1990s SciFi shows. Therefore, it didn't attract a large, new
> audience from these fans.
>
> Unfortunately, being the darkest Trek, DS9 alienated some Trek fans. These
> fans believe that without a captain, crew, the Enterprise, and a utopian,
> prime directive-fearing Federation, you don't have Trek. This left DS9 out
> in the ratings cold.
>
While DS9 never had the ratings that TNG had, it still was one
of the highest rated syndicated series. Indeed, none of the allegedly
"dark" SciFi series that were out there ever came close
to it in the ratings. As I recall, B5 was typically scoring
about a 5 rating while DS9 was at 7 or 8. Though I must say I always
thought that B5 was more pretentious than dark - it was "pseudodark".
B5 featured bland, colorless actors in black uniforms on dimly lit sets.
There's "darkness" for you.
Richard
TrekLady
>While DS9 never had the ratings that TNG had, it still was one
>of the highest rated syndicated series. Indeed, none of the allegedly
>"dark" SciFi series that were out there ever came close
>to it in the ratings.
Yet, once the XFiles (one of the darker shows) came into syndication, it
consistently beat DS9 in ratings.
Bob Flaminio
news:8E59715C8gla...@news.sprint.ca...
> Let me know what YOU think. I really would like to know if I make
> any
> sense at all.
I think you've got a good idea, but your haphazard line-breaking made your
post impossible to read. It looks like you were hitting 'Enter' at the
supposed-end of every line, and then your newsreader software auto-wrapped
slightly before the 'Enter'.
Try again, and only hit enter at the end of paragraphs.
-Bob
Gisèle La Roche
<7tldg1$7j8$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>:
TNG had ratings as high as 10. while DS9 had 5. to 6.
and Voyager is getting on average 2. or 3.. Where did those missing
Trekkers go? An anthology might attract them back especially if
some of the TNG crew were featured at times and might rekindle the
franchise. It may not attract new viewers but then again why would
a show like all the previous shows attract any more new viewers than
an anthology?
The serial format being a drawback is a valid point in my opinion.
I know it from experience. For instance, I have always wanted
to watch Babylon 5 but have never been able to get into the show.
When I try watching it I just don't know what is going on, who the
characters are or who they are referring to. I would really have to
watch it from the beginning or nearly so of the series to get into
it but I never seem to catch the show when reruns of the beginning
are showing. DS9 had this drawback too and the fact that some like
episodic shows better and like the lighter, brighter Trek are
other factors but I think the serial format is what made DS9 hard to
follow or get into for many fans and non-fans.
>DS9 is Trek's masterpiece in my opinion but it
>>failed
>>to garner as many viewers as TPTB would have liked. An anthology
>>format
>>would solve this problem with the
>>new series TPTB are developing and more.
>>
>
>An anthology show would be an excellent idea all around. You can
place
>the show anywhere and anytime within and without the Federation;
you can
>bring aliens, starships, civilians, etc. You can use new stars and
>writers, bring back old stars, or do two- or three-parters for
those arc
>-loving fans (like me).
Agreed and I would love to see some of the old stars again.
>
>
>>Voyager as a series has suffered because its premise painted the
>>writers
>>into a corner. How many ways can you introduce new villains or
even
>>sustain new villains or recurring characters when the ship is
always
>>on
>>the move? These parameters and others are paramount to the making
of
>>a
>>good scifi show. Paradoxically the premise of Voyager also makes
it
>>difficult to develop the main
>>characters as the only environment is basically the ship. How many
>>times can the ship almost find a faster way home or get home at
all
>>and
>>not ruin the premise? How can it tap into the already existing
>>*rich*
>>Trek mythology?
>
>For Trek, I thought the premise was weak for the reasons you stated
>except for character development. Like DS9, the characters on VOY
are
>essentially stuck on the ship and they should be highly developed
after
>seven years.
Yes but paradoxically they can`t be. The environment is too
small (the ship) and changes too often (location). On DS9, they had
the benefit of the fact that it was a static space station (point of
reference) where people and different *established* races came and
went, they were in the Alpha Quadrant and near the Federation, they
had recurring characters and the already established Trek villains
so that they could focus on relationships and character development
without it becoming boring as they could also show all the other
things above. They could show the reactions of the crew to the
villains without having to explain who these new villains were, what
they were about and so on. It made it easier to work on the
relationships of the main characters and even the recurring
characters. They also had more characters to work with and could
rotate the focus. On Voyager they could and should have developed
the characters more but lack the reference points that DS9 had ie.
Federation and only have so many people to work with. I don`t know
if I am explaining myself well but I think that with the premise of
Voyager it makes it more, not less difficult to develop the
characters but I agree the characters could and should have been
more developed by now but I don`t think they could achieve the
depth of character development that DS9 had on Voyager.
>
>Interestingly, IMHO the premise of VOY was weak for Trek, but for
not
>for a SciFi show. If the writers didn't use the magic reset button
at
>the end of every episode and displayed some more continuity, the
show
>could be more interesting. (e.g., the ship should be a mismatch of
alien
>and Federation technology, the supplies of weapons may be running
out)
Very true, there is no reason for there not being continuity in
terms of how the characters behave and so on.
Gisčle
>
>TrekLady
>
>
>
Gisèle La Roche
<37fe936a$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>:
>Gisčle La Roche <g...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>news:8E59715C8gla...@news.sprint.ca...
>> Let me know what YOU think. I really would like to know if I
make
>> any
>> sense at all.
>
>I think you've got a good idea, but your haphazard line-breaking
made your
>post impossible to read. It looks like you were hitting 'Enter' at
the
>supposed-end of every line, and then your newsreader software auto-
wrapped
>slightly before the 'Enter'.
>
>Try again, and only hit enter at the end of paragraphs.
>
>-Bob
>
>
Sorry I don`t write it that way but my newsreader always does that.
Maybe I need to write using less space
and then my newsreader won`t wordwrap
like it always does.
I wrote these last few sentences
in a shorter length to see if it
is better and I will try to fix my post
and repost it.
Gisčle
Gisèle La Roche
Ok now I know what you mean. I did a test and see the difference.
Look for my post titled "Reposting - easier to read I hope!"
Again Thanks !!!!!!
Gisčle
htj...@yahoo.com
I'd like to start by saying that I agree with your point. An anthology-like
series is easier to get into. TNG has some loose arcs that still
can be followed by new fans (Such as the one regarding the events leading
up to Klingon Civil War). Although some viewers may prefer
a serialized Star Trek, Paramount has to try to enlarge their fan base.
I have to disagree with some of your other minor points.
One of the failings of DS9 and in fact *the only one* in my opinion was the fact that it had a serial format and was not based on stand- alone episodes and that made it difficult for new or casual viewers to follow the series however great it was/is. DS9 is Trek's masterpiece in my opinion but it failed to garner as many viewers as TPTB would have liked. An anthology format would solve this problem with the new series TPTB are developing and more.
What will a "de-serialized" DS9 look like? As far as I can
tell, some people who prefer DS9 over TNG is precisely because it is more
serialized. To suggest that the primary flaw of DS9's is its serialization
is rejecting its premise.
Voyager as a series has suffered because its premise painted the writers into a corner. How many ways can you introduce new villains or even sustain new villains or recurring characters when the ship is always on the move? These parameters and others are paramount to the making of a good scifi show. Paradoxically the premise of Voyager also makes it difficult to develop the main characters as the only environment is basically the ship. How many times can the ship almost find a faster way home or get home at all and not ruin the premise? How can it tap into the already existing *rich* Trek mythology?
Although your questions are legitimate, they are not insurmountable.
The writers of Voyager simply does not know how to deal with this format.
They are probably better at dealing with the TNG format. To essentially
write the background for an entire quadrant is like trying to introduce
the characteristics of traditional Star Trek aliens (Vulcans, Klingons,
...etc.) and familiarize the audience with them, within 7 seasons! (assuming
they last that long) It is not impossible and it does help liberate
their imagination, but the writers don't know how to deal with this kind
of freedom. As a result, we get Alien-Of-The-Week and Reset Button.
TOS and TNG were around when TV ratings were high. TV had less rivals. TNG was a ratings success. DS9 achieved the highest ratings in syndication TV but never achieved TNG's ratings, why? Apart from its format and the fact that TV at the time and the big screen movies on top of that were saturated with scifi, when DS9 came on the scene we had the newly emerging popularity of computers with chatrooms, newsgroups, heck the internet to explore. There were the new game systems and games to keep us occupied. There were more and more TV stations to choose from. How does TV or Trek for that matter get the viewers back?
Remember, TNG was not confined to one network. It was syndicated
for broadcasting stations. But your statement about more sci-fi-
selections and distractions is certainly true.
Ok, some would say more sex, more violence, and the newer twenty something romance/comedy formats. But how do you infuse new life into what some are saying is the overdone Trek universe?
One thing I dread is that they might go for the *kid factor*. This I sincerely believe would *kill* Trek. Watching Naomi Wildman and thinking about "Insurrection" I can't help but think this is where they are headed. The rumors about an academy series seem to be false but it may just be that they want some kind of twenty-something type of maybe not romance/comedy type of drivel but still might infuse the new show with it as it is popular right now.
I personally don't favor the direction TV programs has taken ever
since analysts poured over the success of Titanic and found that the teen
market is what everyone should go after. I am in constant fear that
Star Trek will soon follow the new method. The day I will boycott
Star Trek is the day when the U.S.S. Titanic encounters an ion storm with
Celine Dion in the background.
Captain Riker and the Enterprise and Admiral Picard (ok maybe not Picard as Patrick Stewart is too high-priced these days) but imagine an episode or arc focusing on this crew. How about an episode dealing with Cardassia and the aftermath of the war with the Dominion. We would get to see Garak again................yessss. An update on how Colonel Kira and DS9 is faring. We would get to see Nana Visitor again. I am a female but I would LOVE to see her again. Oh and how about Quark and Nog, Ezri and Bashir and so on? How about an episode dealing with the Romulans on one of their ships and/or on the homeworld exploring their culture. This would apply to any race ie. Cardassians, Bajorans, Pakleds (heh heh), you name it. Voyager's crew at home and how they fare. Did Bajor join the Federation?
Although I am one of those in the minority who still sing louder
praises for TNG than DS9, your suggestions above are certainly worthwhile
pursuits. Although personally I doubt we will actually deal with
the recovery of the Federation. (Chances are, the infamous Reset Button
will be pushed by simply setting the next series 78 years after DS9.
The writers didn't know how to deal with the immediate aftermath of the
Federation-Klingon Peace Treaty in 1987. I don't think the writers
know how to deal with the recovery of the Federation.) I am longing
for the day when we actually get to see a Romulan Warbird on the big screen.
(When was the last time THIS happened? Come on, we've seen Bird of
Prey for 5 times in the 9 movies. Is there anyone out there who is
also getting tired of seeing that same model used over and over again?)
The writers would be free to take from any part of the already established Trek universe. They would be free to explore scifi storylines that wouldn't necessarily disrupt continuity as Voyager has been forced to do with its premise. Trekkers I am certain would tune in just to see what part of the Trek universe would be explored next.
With an anthology series we would get to see many of our favorite characters without the writers having to use *overused* storylines to explain their appearance.
Do you realize how much this sounds like TNG. (Not that I'm complaining.
After all, TNG made it into the big screen. DS9 didn't.)
What created Trek in the first place? TOS was the most innovative series of the time but it wasn't the sets or the special effects that made it good. What has endured are the relationships and the characters, the exploration of humanity, the fact that it reflected *us*. And that *us* resonates around the globe. We, and that includes people from all over the world from countless cultures, could identify with the characters. This is what made DS9 such a good series as well. The stories in TOS were hardly childish or geared to the kids. And yet I watched it and loved it and I was a little kid at the time. It makes me think of Bugs Bunny and how although they were cartoons they appealed to kids AND adults. Why? Because they were human. We could identify with them.
You're preaching to the choir here. Seriously, I agree with
you 100%.
Let me know what YOU think. I really would like to know if I make any sense at all. Gisèle
I suppose I should be the one wondering whether I am making any
sense.
htjyang
Bob Flaminio
news:8E5A462F7gla...@news.sprint.ca...
You're welcome! Yes, the repost is *much* easier to read. Thanks.
-Bob
Londonj11
>
>IMHO no Trek in the 1990s would be a ratings blockbuster. Trek always
>promoted a utopian, authority-loving (e.g., Feds) universe. The trends of
>1990s SciFi were towards a more distopic, anti-authority universe. DS9
>anticipated this by becoming a darker Trek, but NOT a darker SciFi show.
>
During the Cold War, the prevailing sentiment was that nuclear annihilation was
inevitable. That bleak mentality was reflected in movies like "On the Beach",
"Dr. Strangelove" and "Planet of the Apes." People’s view of the future was
far darker then it is today.
Star Trek was born in the midst of that doom and gloom. It was meant in part
to be a repudiation of that despondency. Star Trek reaffirmed a faith in
humanity and the hope for a better tomorrow. That is one of the reasons it
became so popular and has endured to this day.
A negative vision is, by its very nature, short-sighted and self-destructive.
>In DS9's early seasons, the "darkness" of the show was mostly superficial
>(e.g, the senior staff not getting along as well as crews from TNG or TOS,
>dark interiors), and most of the first season storylines could have been
>lifted straight from TNG.
>
>In later seasons, DS9's storylines and characters tried to catch up (e.g.,
>Section 31), but it couldn't compete because, being Trek, DS9 could never go
>as far as these 1990s SciFi shows. Therefore, it didn't attract a large, new
>audience from these fans.
>
>Unfortunately, being the darkest Trek, DS9 alienated some Trek fans. These
>fans believe that without a captain, crew, the Enterprise, and a utopian,
>prime directive-fearing Federation, you don't have Trek. This left DS9 out
>in the ratings cold.
DS9 was intended to be a darker Star Trek then TNG. TNG had too much of a
saachrine sweet, drama without conflict, Care Bears approach to stories. The
trouble is that DS9 became too dark. There is a difference between a more
"realistic" presentation of the Federation and having a Federation that engages
in biological warfare and attempted genocide. (I repeat, too much of anything
is bad.)
While its true that "The X-Files" is both dark and popular, because of its
paranoid premise, its dark approach is an intrinsic part of the series. In the
same way, because of Star Trek’s hopeful premise, its utopian approach is an
intrinsic part of it. That is why having a corrupt Federation is so wrong on
such a fundamental level.
Londonj11
>
>One of the failings of DS9 and in fact *the only one* in my opinion
>was
>the fact that it had a serial format and was not based on stand-
>alone
>episodes and that
>made it difficult for new or casual viewers to follow the series
>however
>great it was/is.
I think DS9 had more then one failing. Please don’t misconstrue that as an
attack against DS9, because I did like the show. I just think that every show
has its own particular set of shortcomings and flaws.
As to DS9’s serial format, I’ve always been of the belief that too much of
anything is bad. When DS9 first started to use its serial format, it was a
refreshing change. The Klingon War story arc, for instance, was interesting
and just the right length. The trouble was when they started to overuse the
serial format with the Dominion War. A story arc that lasts for over two years
is excessive.
Another shortcoming of the serial format is that it becomes repetitious. The
Dominion were interesting villains, but in the last couple of seasons when they
started to appear as the bad guys in nearly every episode, I just became sick
and tired of them. (I repeat, too much of anything is bad.)
However, for the most part DS9 was episodic and became more and more serialized
during the latter part of its run. By that time, its viewer base had already
been established. So the argument that DS9 was less popular then TNG and TOS
due in part to its serial format really doesn’t hold up.
>DS9 is Trek's masterpiece in my opinion but it
>failed
>to garner as many viewers as TPTB would have liked. An anthology
>format
>would solve this problem with the
>new series TPTB are developing and more.
>
>Voyager as a series has suffered because its premise painted the
>writers
>into a corner. How many ways can you introduce new villains or even
>sustain new villains or recurring characters when the ship is always
>on
>the move?
Dr. Who had an even more erratic situation in regards to setting, constantly
jumping around not only in space but time as well. Yet the show had a number
of fascinating reoccurring villains. On VOY we’ve seen the Borg, Q, Species
8472, the "time cops" from the future, and the Equinox. Even though none of
these efforts were really that spectacular, they do show it is possible to have
villains that aren’t tied down to one particular area of space. Like so much
about VOY, the potential is there, it just hasn’t been developed properly.
>These parameters and others are paramount to the making of
>a
>good scifi show. Paradoxically the premise of Voyager also makes it
>difficult to develop the main
>characters as the only environment is basically the ship. How many
>times can the ship almost find a faster way home or get home at all
>and
>not ruin the premise?
DS9’s premise was far more restrictive then VOY’s. How many times can the
station have important visitors? How many times can the crew leave the station
on missions when the Federation has a whole fleet of starships for that
purpose? That’s one of the reasons why DS9 had so many wars. They needed big
events that would involve the station interacting with the rest of the galaxy.
Nevertheless, DS9 did a far better job of developing its characters and setting
then VOY. The problem doesn’t lie in VOY’s premise, but in the quality of its
writing.
As I’ve said before, I think every show has its own set of faults. I have no
favorites among the shows. I think that gives a more unbiased view. In fact,
one of the things I find most annoying about so many Star Trek fans is when
they’re devotion to their favorite show, whatever it may be, clouds their
judgment and prejudices their views so much that they blind themselves to its
shortcomings or twist things around in their favor.
Growing competition certainly had its influences. However, to take the fact
that DS9 was significantly less popular then TNG and TOS and lay the blame
almost entirely on competition and find little to no fault within the show
itself is to bury your head in the sand. You don’t see anyone trying attribute
VOY’s disappointing ratings to outside competition, even though it faces even
more competition then DS9 did, including DS9 itself.
Now to the main point of you post, the question of an anthology series.
Yes, it would be very expensive. Also, it would be a living a hell to produce,
what with an ever-changing cast and sets. As it is, the Star Trek shows have
been some of the most expensive and complicated shows ever produced for
television. An anthology series would be even far more expensive and
complicated and the show itself would suffer because of it.
However, that is not the biggest drawback of an anthology series. You said it
yourself, the best thing about DS9 was its developed, familiar characters and
setting and its use of continuity. Think of any series and what’s the first
things that come to mind? TOS: Kirk, Spock, the Enterprise. TNG: Picard,
Data, the Enterprise-D. DS9: Sisko, Dax, the station. VOY: Janeway, Seven,
Voyager. Viewers like series for its familiarity and to see it develop and
grow. In contrast, an anthology series has nothing to build on, no ongoing
characters or situations to garner and hold viewer interest. Would you
honestly like DS9 so much if it had the same storylines but constantly changed
casts and settings from week to week?
You've gone from one extreme to another. DS9 was a serialized show with a
tight-knit cast of characters in a limited setting, so much so that near the
end it was turning into something of a soap opera. Your answer to that is to
have a show that has no set characters or situations, is erratically different
from week to week and is completely lacking in stability and consitency.
I’ve noticed most of your story suggestions sound more like "DS9: The Return"
or "The New Generation." When talking about a new series, too many fans just
want to return to an old series and cling tenaciously to the past. Would the
hardcore Trekkers watch "Star Trek: Anthology?" Sure, but then again hardcore
Trekkers would pretty much watch "Star Trek: Anything."
Its obvious to all but the most deluded fan that interest in Star Trek is
waning and Star Trek itself is starting to lose its vitality. How do you
reclaim all those viewers that left over the years and revitalize Star Trek
itself? By recycling the established? Absolutely not. You do it by taking
the basic, familiar elements of Star Trek and doing something never seen
before, much like the way TNG did with TOS. A new series should be seen as a
fresh start, and opportunity to do something novel and exciting. A new series
should be a *new* series.
PG66213
>>
>>IMHO no Trek in the 1990s would be a ratings blockbuster. Trek always
>>promoted a utopian, authority-loving (e.g., Feds) universe. The trends of
>>1990s SciFi were towards a more distopic, anti-authority universe. DS9
>>anticipated this by becoming a darker Trek, but NOT a darker SciFi show.
>>
>This presumes that a negative vision is inherently better then a positive
>one.
>
vision was better or worse. I just noted that the trends of the 1990s TV SciFi
were towards a darker, anti-authority universe (e.g., XFiles, B5, Earth Final
Conflict). Trek always stood alone in promoting a utopian, authority-loving
universe. One of the appeals of Trek is that it promoted a optimistic view of
the future.
>DS9 was intended to be a darker Star Trek then TNG. TNG had too much of a
>saachrine sweet, drama without conflict, Care Bears approach to stories. The
>trouble is that DS9 became too dark. There is a difference between a more
>"realistic" presentation of the Federation and having a Federation that
>engages
>in biological warfare and attempted genocide. (I repeat, too much of
>anything
>is bad.)
>While its true that "The X-Files" is both dark and popular, because of its
>paranoid premise, its dark approach is an intrinsic part of the series. In
>the
>same way, because of Star Trek’s hopeful premise, its utopian approach is an
>intrinsic part of it. That is why having a corrupt Federation is so wrong on
>such a fundamental level.
>
As a DS9 fan, I am going to agree to disagree. I don't think that DS9 is "too
dark". Compared to other 1990s SciFi shows, it's rather tame and still has an
optimistic view of mankind.
Trek fans are not monolithic in their view of Trek. As I said before, among
many fans if it's not like TOS or TNG (a captain, a crew, the Enterprise,
episodic shows, and a utopian Federation), it's not Trek. The more a show moves
away from this 'formula', the more fans may fall by the wayside until all you
have left are Trek fans that watch anything as long as it has Trek label on it.
The trick is to create a new Trek show that would attract new fans. TPTB could
make no changes in "the formula" hoping that the trend in 2000s would go back
to the utopian, authority-loving shows. Or TPTB could change Trek radically to
attract a new audience. In that case, it may be completely different from what
most Trek fans want.
TrekLady
Gisèle La Roche
>I have to disagree with some of your other minor points.
Ok, I have replied to your disagreements but have not snipped
anything to keep things in context so read to the end of the
message........:o)
>
>> One of the failings of DS9 and in fact *the only one* in my
opinion
>> was
>> the fact that it had a serial format and was not based on stand-
>> alone
>> episodes and that
>> made it difficult for new or casual viewers to follow the series
>> however
>> great it was/is. DS9 is Trek's masterpiece in my opinion but it
>> failed
>> to garner as many viewers as TPTB would have liked. An anthology
>> format
>> would solve this problem with the
>> new series TPTB are developing and more.
>>
>
>What will a "de-serialized" DS9 look like? As far as I can tell,
some
>people who prefer DS9 over TNG is precisely because it is more
>serialized. To suggest that the primary flaw of DS9's is its
>serialization is rejecting its premise.
I think some people misunderstood what I meant here. DS9 was a
masterpiece as far as I am concerned and one of the reasons it was
so good at character development and continuity is because of the
serial nature of the series. I LOVE DS9 just the way it is and
episodic DS9 would not have been nearly as good.
What I was referring to is that the ONLY flaw that I could think of
in terms of why it did not garner as many viewers as TNG is because
of the seriality of the show. It made it difficult for the casual
or new viewer to get into. Perhaps flaw is not the right
word...drawback would be better maybe. I was just talking in terms
of ratings not quality.
Of course there are other reasons why DS9 had lower ratings:
Computers and the internet were just starting to get popular at the
time it started; Game systems (Nintendo et al) were just coming on
to the scene; TV was becoming saturated with Scifi as well as the
big screen movies; among other things. Scifi has a smaller audience
to begin with so when there is saturation it has a lot of impact on
ratings. There is also the fact that some people did not like the
darker, grittier type of Trek. Nonetheless, an anthology series I
believe might bring back those Trekkers that stopped watching.
There are many reasons why DS9 did not do as well as TNG but I think
the reason why some fans did not warm up to it is because of its
serial nature. It still did well in the ratings nonetheless as it
was the highest rated show in syndication.
Yep, I think I may be giving the writers too much credit here but I
still think they painted themselves into a corner with the premise.
Ha ha ha ha ha, I like that. You summed up in a few words exactly
what I was trying to say but you said it better.........:o)
Agreed, I think it would ruin Trek.
Yep, I would love to see more Romulan based shows but I doubt we
will see that anywhere soon. Although, I believe as Voyager gets
closer to home they will be nearing Romulan space so maybe, just
maybe we might get some Romulan stories.
>
>> The writers would be free to take from any part of the already
>> established
>> Trek universe. They would be free to explore scifi storylines
that
>> wouldn't necessarily disrupt continuity as Voyager has been
forced
>> to do
>> with its premise. Trekkers I am certain would tune in just to
see
>> what
>> part of the Trek universe would be explored next.
>>
>> With an anthology series we would get to see many of our favorite
>> characters without the writers having to use *overused*
storylines
>> to
>> explain their appearance.
>>
>
>Do you realize how much this sounds like TNG. (Not that I'm
>complaining. After all, TNG made it into the big screen. DS9
didn't.)
It does have a TNG feel to it but I mean where *other* cultures
would be explored as well in an arc or episode and only that culture
or race, where we would dip into all of the Trek universe and not
just the Federation viewpoint. Also of course they could feature
characters and settings from all the Trek series.
Yes you are and thanks for replying !!
Gisèle
>
>htjyang
Gisèle La Roche
<19991009180940.10141.00000278@ng
-bj1.aol.com>:
I have replied to your post but have not snipped anything in order
to keep the context intact. Please read to the end.
>>Greetings,
>>
>>One of the failings of DS9 and in fact *the only one* in my
opinion
>>was
>>the fact that it had a serial format and was not based on stand-
>>alone
>>episodes and that
>>made it difficult for new or casual viewers to follow the series
>>however
>>great it was/is.
>
>I think DS9 had more then one failing. Please don’t misconstrue
that as
>an attack against DS9, because I did like the show. I just think
that
>every show has its own particular set of shortcomings and flaws.
Would you elaborate on this? I think this is interesting.
>
>As to DS9’s serial format, I’ve always been of the belief that too
much
>of anything is bad. When DS9 first started to use its serial
format, it
>was a refreshing change. The Klingon War story arc, for instance,
was
>interesting and just the right length. The trouble was when they
>started to overuse the serial format with the Dominion War. A
story arc
>that lasts for over two years is excessive.
I didn't find it excessive but I guess it is a matter of taste. I
liked the way they involved everyone and even the recurring
characters in the war. We got to see several perspectives to boot.
>
>Another shortcoming of the serial format is that it becomes
repetitious.
> The Dominion were interesting villains, but in the last couple of
>seasons when they started to appear as the bad guys in nearly every
>episode, I just became sick and tired of them. (I repeat, too much
of
>anything is bad.)
Again a matter of taste but I see your point.
>
>However, for the most part DS9 was episodic and became more and
more
>serialized during the latter part of its run. By that time, its
viewer
>base had already been established. So the argument that DS9 was
less
>popular then TNG and TOS due in part to its serial format really
doesn’t
>hold up.
DS9 was episodic for maybe the first and second season but it became
serialized much sooner than the last two seasons. Nonetheless its
serial nature is not the only reason that it did not garner as many
viewers as TNG so don't take this as the only reason.
>
>>DS9 is Trek's masterpiece in my opinion but it
>>failed
>>to garner as many viewers as TPTB would have liked. An anthology
>>format
>>would solve this problem with the
>>new series TPTB are developing and more.
>>
>>Voyager as a series has suffered because its premise painted the
>>writers
>>into a corner. How many ways can you introduce new villains or
even
>>sustain new villains or recurring characters when the ship is
always
>>on
>>the move?
>
>Dr. Who had an even more erratic situation in regards to setting,
>constantly jumping around not only in space but time as well. Yet
the
>show had a number of fascinating reoccurring villains.
I have never watched that show so I'll take your word for it but
can't discuss this point because of it.
>On VOY we’ve
>seen the Borg, Q, Species 8472, the "time cops" from the future,
and the
>Equinox. Even though none of these efforts were really that
>spectacular, they do show it is possible to have villains that
aren’t
>tied down to one particular area of space. Like so much about VOY,
the
>potential is there, it just hasn’t been developed properly.
Agreed the writing could be better but in terms of recurring
characters the premise makes it much more difficult to sustain them
in my opinion nonetheless. The reason the villains or characters
and the episodes they appeared in that you state above were not that
well done is precisely because it is difficult to write them because
of the premise without it becoming ridiculous. Also, they are
hardly recurring as they have appeared in only a few episodes.
Compare the above with Dukat or the Dominion for example.
>
>>These parameters and others are paramount to the making of
>>a
>>good scifi show. Paradoxically the premise of Voyager also makes
it
>>difficult to develop the main
>>characters as the only environment is basically the ship. How many
>>times can the ship almost find a faster way home or get home at
all
>>and
>>not ruin the premise?
>
>DS9’s premise was far more restrictive then VOY’s. How many times
can
>the station have important visitors? How many times can the crew
leave
>the station on missions when the Federation has a whole fleet of
>starships for that purpose? That’s one of the reasons why DS9 had
so
>many wars. They needed big events that would involve the station
>interacting with the rest of the galaxy.
DS9 did not explore the galaxy but it explored cultures and
characters (ie. Ferengi, Klingon, Cardassian to name a few). The
relationships were explored and they had a slew of recurring
characters. In Voyager they have a more difficult time with
recurring characters because of the premise and have fewer people to
work with to begin with. Character development based episodes can
get boring fast when there are too many. They were able to get past
this on DS9 precisely because they COULD have a slew of recurring
characters and they wouldn't have to come up with outlandish reasons
of why they were there in the first place.
>
>Nevertheless, DS9 did a far better job of developing its characters
and
>setting then VOY. The problem doesn’t lie in VOY’s premise, but in
the
>quality of its writing.
True, the writing is not up to par on Voyager but I still think they
have a harder time of it. Don't forget that Voyager is Trek's
fourth series and ideas can get scarse after a while. But I agree I
think I am giving the writers too much credit.
I really hope you elaborate on this as I would like to hear your
views.
> I have no favorites among the shows. I think that gives a more
unbiased
>view.
That's good. I have to admit I am biased when it comes to DS9.
In fact, one of the things I find most annoying about so many
>Star Trek fans is when they’re devotion to their favorite show,
whatever
>it may be, clouds their judgment and prejudices their views so much
that
>they blind themselves to its shortcomings or twist things around in
>their favor.
Well, I think if you reread what I said in the first and subsequent
posts you'll see that I cite several things to prove my points.
When it comes to shortcomings and so on well I guess it is a matter
of taste. I happen to love DS9. You like it. We are bound to have
differences in opinion. But of all the scifi shows that were on
when DS9 was on only The X-Files really did extremely well in the
ratings. DS9 did very well in the ratings so it is not like we are
talking about the failure of DS9 or anything but I assume here you
are saying that DS9 was not good or something and that is why it did
not do well. Please elaborate.
>
>Growing competition certainly had its influences. However, to take
the
>fact that DS9 was significantly less popular then TNG and TOS
I wouldn't put TOS in there simply because at the time it was the
only game in town. Mind you the same can be said of TNG at the
time.
and lay
>the blame almost entirely on competition and find little to no
fault
>within the show itself is to bury your head in the sand.
Oh I agree that some people did not like DS9 perhaps because it did
not feature the usual white, male middle-class male or maybe because
it did not show the happy, happy light oh so rosier than heaven
future of TNG or the classic Trek premise but the reasons I stated
are applicable. Please elaborate here.
You don’t see
>anyone trying attribute VOY’s disappointing ratings to outside
>competition, even though it faces even more competition then DS9
did,
>including DS9 itself.
I have seen many reasons Trekkers state for not liking Voyager on
Paramount newsgroups and on the Usenet newsgroups, mainly they don't
like the captain (because she is female is a reason unfortunately),
they don't like the crew, the show is bad with continuity, you name
it I've read it. TNG is criticized for its lack of continuity, its
underdevelopment of the characters, lame stories at times, same for
Voyager. TOS, well it is kind of hard to criticize as it was from
such a long time ago. But when it comes to DS9, I think it is a
matter of taste. Oh it had its share of poor episodes, all the
shows have them, but for the most part the show was excellent. Some
criticized the show for having a soap opera element to it but I
think that it wasn't that at all but rather that it was a character
driven show and the relationships are what made DS9 so good. I
won't repeat what I said before pro DS9 but feel free to state what
you see as DS9's failings. Another criticism I have seen is that it
featured the *war* too much and that it veered too far away from
Roddenberry's version of Trek. Well again I think it is a matter of
taste.
Agreed but not impossible.
Also, it would be a living a hell to
>produce, what with an ever-changing cast and sets. As it is, the
Star
>Trek shows have been some of the most expensive and complicated
shows
>ever produced for television. An anthology series would be even
far
>more expensive and complicated and the show itself would suffer
because
>of it.
I know what you mean but I still think it could be done. Mind you
it wouldn't be easy and yes it would be expensive. I doubt it would
ever happen though as I read that Paramount wants a *cheaper* Trek
in the future. They were dissatisfied with "Insurrection" in terms
of money and want less expensive Trek, hence another reason why I
think they are kiddifying Trek.
>
>However, that is not the biggest drawback of an anthology series.
You
>said it yourself, the best thing about DS9 was its developed,
familiar
>characters and setting and its use of continuity. Think of any
series
>and what’s the first things that come to mind? TOS: Kirk, Spock,
the
>Enterprise. TNG: Picard, Data, the Enterprise-D. DS9: Sisko,
Dax,
>the station. VOY: Janeway, Seven, Voyager.
Anthology: The whole Trek universe. Sorry but I don't agree here.
Viewers like series for
>its familiarity and to see it develop and grow. In contrast, an
>anthology series has nothing to build on,
It has the whole of Star Trek.
>no ongoing characters
They easily could do arcs and return from time to time to the same
characters. We would for the most part be seeing the Trek
characters we love so much already and new ones as well.
or
>situations to garner and hold viewer interest.
It would hold my interest to see which part of Trek they were
exploring next.
>Would you honestly like
>DS9 so much if it had the same storylines but constantly changed
casts
>and settings from week to week?
>
>You've gone from one extreme to another.
You are. You can't compare DS9 to an anthology series. DS9 was
unique and I am afraid that we will never see the likes of it again.
>DS9 was a serialized show with
>a tight-knit cast of characters in a limited setting, so much so
that
>near the end it was turning into something of a soap opera. Your
answer
>to that is to have a show that has no set characters or situations,
They for the most part would be characters we already know and some
new ones as well. As for situations well it would be based on the
already familiar Trek universe.
> is
>erratically different from week to week and is completely lacking
in
>stability and consitency.
Hardly as it would be based on the whole of the Trek universe.
>I’ve noticed most of your story suggestions sound more like "DS9:
The
>Return" or "The New Generation."
They could be anything, that's the point.
When talking about a new series, too
>many fans just want to return to an old series and cling
tenaciously to
>the past. Would the hardcore Trekkers watch "Star Trek:
Anthology?"
>Sure, but then again hardcore Trekkers would pretty much watch
"Star
>Trek: Anything."
Perhaps it would lure back all those missing Trekkers. TNG had
ratings of 10. at times. DS9 had 5. or 6.. Voyager 2. or 3..
Where did all those Trekkers go. Of course, things were different
when TNG was on the air but I don't want to repeat all that. TV on
the whole has had a ratings downturn just about from the time TNG
went off the air so it is not just a Trek thing.
>
>Its obvious to all but the most deluded fan that interest in Star
Trek
>is waning and Star Trek itself is starting to lose its vitality.
True.
How do
>you reclaim all those viewers that left over the years and
revitalize
>Star Trek itself? By recycling the established?
Not recycling, but expanding, exploring, developing the Trek
universe. Newer is not always better.
Absolutely not. You
>do it by taking the basic, familiar elements of Star Trek and doing
>something never seen before,
Now this is interesting. Please elaborate.
>much like the way TNG did with TOS. A new
>series should be seen as a fresh start, and opportunity to do
something
>novel and exciting. A new series should be a *new* series.
New how? New ship.......been there done that. New crew........been
there done that. New premise..........been there done that. Please
elaborate.
Thanks for your post and I await your reply!
Gisèle
>
>
>
Douglas Burke
happening because it would be difficult to establish a centre around which
the show would revolve. People tend to tune in week after week to see
characters that they have come to like. I got to love the Next Gen and DS9
crews over the years and it was like seeing a group of old friends every
week. With a show that darted all over the place and dealt with differrent
groups of people, that wouldn't happen nearly as much. Also, the cost of
all the different kinds of main set that would be required plus hiring
different sets of actors for different sets of episodes would probably be
prohibitive. It's a real shame, because in my opinion such a show would be
utterly facinating.
However, I disagree with you that DS9 was flawed because of its serial
nature rather than consisting of standalone episodes. The main reason why,
for example, Babylon 5 is a great show is its unprecedented arc. DS9's arc
wasn't as pre-meditated...(I am not convinced that the writers knew that
Sisko was half prophet when they wrote Emmisary), but I loved the ongoing
story involving the Dominion which was introduced way back at the end of
Season Two and has been consistently interesting and compelling ever
since. I also applauded the experiments that the writers essayed in
tightly concentrated arc stories, i.e. the Dominion occupation of the
station at the end of Season 5 and the first 6 episodes of Season 6, and
the last ten episodes of the series. While I don't think they were
ultimately as successful or ambitioous as JMS's accomplishment with
Babylon 5, I think this is largely due to inexperience with this way of
writing on the part of the DS9 staff. If the writers had tried it in a
more planned-out way sooner, the series could have been even better.
Granted, a serial approach to telling stories is not as immediately
attractive to casual viewers, but speaking for myself as a dedicated fan,
seeing a compelling, provocative and intriguing ongoing arc story is
ultimately a huge deal more satisfying than seeing stand-alone stories.
(Also, it is perfectly possible for a casual viewer to get hooked on an
arc show if its good enough. For many years I had dismissed Babylon 5,
thinking that it was just a pale imitation of DS9, and then I saw one
episode, [Severed Dreams], and on the basis of that went back to the start
of the show and watched every episode.) Don't get me wrong. Sometimes
stand-alones are absolutely first rate, (as was the case for Next Gen,
which is still, in my opinion, the finest television show ever to be
produced....and featured tentative experiments in arc storytelling long
before JMS put pen to paper at the end of Season 4 with the Klingon civil
war.) However, deeply flawed though Babylon 5 is, the arc is
extraordinary, and I want to see the new Trek series (whatever it will be)
tell its stories in this way.
Douglas Burke
ser...@my-deja.com
g...@mailcity.com (Gisčle La Roche) wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> One of the failings of DS9 and in fact *the only one* in my opinion
> was
> the fact that it had a serial format and was not based on stand-
> alone
> episodes and that
> made it difficult for new or casual viewers to follow the series
> however
> great it was/is. DS9 is Trek's masterpiece in my opinion but it
> failed
> to garner as many viewers as TPTB would have liked. An anthology
> format
> would solve this problem with the
> new series TPTB are developing and more.
>
The major studio prejudice against anthology series is that such shows
have difficulty hooking audiences and holding them consistently from
week to week. This is why there have been so few anthology series
produced since the Sixties (by the broadcast networks, that is. Cable
"networks", as they've tried to find their niches, have been more
receptive to experimentation). THe storytelling advantages of
anthologies are such that producers have come up with variations
involving continuing characters as "framing" characters -- ala "Fantasy
Island" and "Love Boat" -- but these have been few and far between. A
"Star Trek" series is so expensive to produce that the studio is going
to lean on all those aspects of the property which stabilize it and --
not incidentally -- enhance its merchandising potential.
What they would really like to have happen again is for the public to
hook into a "breakout" actor/character as the audience did with
Picard/Stewart. Unfortunately no one knows how to make that happen
(though every fan can tell you how -- at length <G>).
Berman these days is saying that the next Trek will be "very different
from the last two". That would be "Voyager" and DS9, of course -- one
notices that he isn't disassociating it from TNG in the same way.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.